overnors have gained the experience of running an entire executive branch which the next person serving in our nation's highest elected office will need to lead us to total victory in this World War. None but they — not their staves, their friends, or their spouses — possess this experience. It is not transferable or relatable to anyone else. Its essence transcends both the keenest observation and the clearest explanation. Their full exercise of executive powers, judgments, and discretions could not and never can be successfully shared.

John David Ashcroft of Missouri, I believe, should be included among them.

CandidateBirthdate

Public Office Experience*

gubernatorial(years)

other executive

legislative

judicial

Ashcroft (R-MO) May 9, 1942

8

United States Attorney General

Missouri Attorney General (2 terms)

Missouri State Auditor

Senator

lawyer

Gilmore (R-VA) October 6, 1949

4

Virginia Attorney General

lawyer

Huckabee (R-AR) August 24, 1955

11

Arkansas Lieutenant Governor

Romney (R-MA) March 12, 1947

4

law degree

Richardson (D-NM) November 15, 1947

4

United States Ambassador to the United Nations

United States Secretary of Energy

Representative (7 terms)

* Executive experience includes only elective or appointive office at the federal or state level, legislative only a seat in either house of the U.S. Congress, and judicial only a federal or statewide judgeship or court office (e.g., admitted attorney).

All of the above are exceptionally qualified to be our country's next president. In any listing of each one's pros and cons, both as his party's nominee and as the 44th President of the United States, experience as a state's chief executive would be at the top of his pros column.

In the case of Mr. Ashcroft:

Pros

Cons

Executive experience: two-term Governor of a major Midwestern state — one that possesses 11 electoral votes — as well as its Attorney General; Chairman of National Governors Association

Federal legislative experience: United States Senator

Federal law enforcement experience: United States Attorney General, the nation's highest law enforcement position second only to the president

Foreign policy experience: personally worked with U.S. allies and their law enforcement agencies to build and improve relations with them and obtain their cooperation in denying the enemy access to funds and resources

opposed "Most Favored Nation status for China, the IMF bailout, Al Gore's Global Warming Treaty and (BiIsIs al-Qlinton's) ill-considered expansion of NATO (as well as Qlintoon's) 1997 Big Government budget deal," and "has sponsored legislation to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts, and to enact an immediate and massive across-the-board tax cut"

He once vowed that were he ever to become president, he would publicly kneel and pray for divine guidance while being sworn in. That's the sort of statement that makes centrist liberals ["centrist" as in "in between Lenin and Marx"], hardcore lefties, and the odd atheistic right-winger fear Ashcroft as much as he fears God.

(On second thought, this is actually a pro)

Gallbladder removed in 2004 (Gall to oppose liberalism still fully intact and functional)

Another advantage conservatives and Republicans would gain from nominating

John Ashcroft was born in Chicago, Illinois, on May 9, 1942, but grew up in Springfield, Missouri. He graduated from Springfield's Hillcrest High School in 1960 and concluded his studies at Yale University in 1964. He then returned to Chicago, earning his J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School in 1967.

After finishing his legal studies, Ashcroft began teaching at Southwest Missouri State University until running for Congress in 1972. In 1974, Ashcroft became an assistant to Missouri's attorney general, a position he himself was elected to in 1976.

In 1984, he became governor of Missouri, serving for two terms as the state's top public official. Ashcroft was elected chairman of the National Governors Association in 1991. His popularity as governor provided him with the momentum for a successful Senate campaign in 1994. Ashcroft lost his bid for reelection in 2000 but was chosen by President George W. Bush to serve as attorney general.

John Ashcroft announced his resignation after the 2004 election.

– AmericanPresident.org

John Ashcroft for president is that he knows things about Hillbillery et al. which no other campaign does or ever could. He has read every report about every investigation of their nefarious dealings documented over the years by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Although he may not improperly disclose the specifics, he is able to direct his campaign staff where precisely to look to uncover for the American people information they need for making a fully informed decision this election.

Take, for example, BiIsIs and Hilldabeastly Rotten al-Qlinton's close friend Sandy Burglar. The papers their good pal stole from our national archives are so incriminating — showing just how much each one's claim that their co-administration "took (terrorism) more seriously than the current president" is an absolute load of hog wash — the Qlinton Burglar had to do everything he could or was told to hide them, including stuffing them in his shorts.

When I sat before the 9/11 Commission, I encouraged them to study carefully the classified Millennium After Action Review, which amounted to President Clinton's National Security Council plan to disrupt the al Qaeda network in the U.S. and abroad. Unfortunately, our government had failed to implement fully that plan, even though deterrents were spelled out clearly, a full seventeen months before the horrendous attacks of September 11, 2001.

Ironically, the NSC Millennium After Action Review itself declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999, and cites luck as playing a major role. Among the many vulnerable areas of homeland defenses identified in the review as needing improvement, Justice Department surveillance and FISA operations were specifically criticized as "glaring weaknesses."

It was clear from the review that actions taken in the millennium period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government when it comes to preventing terrorist strikes against our homeland. The March 2000 review warned the Clinton administration of a substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence within the U.S. capable of supporting additional terrorist attacks here.

Furthermore, fully seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the review recommended disrupting the al Qaeda network and terrorist presence in the United States by using immigration violations, minor criminal infractions, tougher visa restrictions, and stronger border controls — destabilizing terrorist groups and taking them off the streets.

Interestingly, as I explained to the 9/11 Commission, "These are the same aggressive, often-criticized law enforcement tactics that we have unleashed for thirty-one months to stop another al Qaeda attack. These are the same tough tactics we deployed to catch Ali al-Marri, who was sent here by al Qaeda on September 10, 2001, to facilitate a second wave of terrorist attacks on Americans."

But despite the warnings and the clear vulnerabilities identified by the NSC in 2000, no new pre-9/11 disruption strategy to attack the al Qaeda network within the United States was deployed. It was ignored in the Justice Department's five-year counterterrorism strategy. From my perspective, it was buried.

I did not see this highly classified review before September 11, 2001. It was not among the thirty items on which I was briefed in the transition period when I took office. Nor was it advanced as a disruption strategy to me during the 2001 summer threat period by the NSC staff, the same agency that had written the review more than a year earlier.

Why the blueprint for security was not followed during the Clinton years, and particularly after the report raised warnings in the year 2000, we may never know. I do know from my personal experience that those who take the kind of tough measures called for in the plan will feel the heat in modern America.

I've been there, and I've heard the impassioned, amorphous rhetoric about infringing on the "civil liberties" of potential terrorists in our towns, cities, malls, and sporting arenas. Frankly, the sense of urgency in America may not have been enough to overcome concern about the outcry and criticism that most certainly would have followed such tough tactics. But the tactics themselves were right; the suggestions made by the Millennium After Action Report worked. I know they worked because, although we did not have access to that particular report until much later, the Justice Department put into practice those very tactics, what I called our "spit on the sidewalk" policy: detain or arrest suspected terrorists on any legal grounds possible. And the attacks stopped.

Certainly, we must never forget that terrorists take a long view of history — they waited for eight years between attacks on the World Trade Center — but after 9/11 there has not been a successful terrorist attack on our nation for more than fifty-eight months, since implementing the aggressive "spit on the sidewalk" strategy, or to date as I write these words. That fact alone causes one to wonder what might have happened — or not have happened — had the Millennium After Action recommendations been fully deployed rather than discarded, had they been fully implemented upon delivery rather than lost in the bureaucracy.

It is impossible to say that the Justice Department was not aware of the report in 2000. They knew the review warned of a substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated terrorist presence within the United States, and it was critical of the nation's security measures taken prior to 2000.

Yet something about that report must have seemed either profoundly valuable or extremely embarrassing. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger apparently felt the classified report was telling enough that he would risk smuggling draft copies of it out of the National Archives, ostensibly to prepare testimony for the 9/11 Commission. Berger went even further, taking copies of the classified after action report to his office and destroying them.2

Also, because Hillbillery illegally "vacuumed" the dirt out of the FBI files on their opponents long before Mr. Ashcroft arrived in Washington, they don't really have any on him.

Mr. Ashcroft choosing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be his running mate would heighten this advantage. With Miss Rice on the ticket, the Demoqlintonic Party nominee's already bleak chances of selling Her Nibsly self as somehow better prepared or more experienced in foreign policy matters will be nil.

All he needs to do now is formally announce his candidacy and declare its goals.

The best place and opportunity he has for making that announcement is in front of the Gateway Arch at the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis. This backdrop would exemplify the Gateway to New Frontiers — America's expanding frontiers of victory and peace, energy and commerce, space exploration and settlement, individual freedoms and personal independence from government's oppressive maternalism — which his campaign would pioneer and represent. Our nation's tallest monument would help him tangibly relate its most elevating messages to all Americans, especially if he launches that campaign on October 28, the 42nd anniversary of the Gateway's completion on the banks of the Mississippi.

From there he would begin explaining its goals as well as how to achieve them. By the time caucus and primary elections start he will have put together the campaign staff and raised enough funds to help him earn our votes and win the Republican nomination.

The additional advantages our whole country would gain from electing Mr. Ashcroft president are summarized in these quotes:

We remain committed to welcoming legal immigrants, but we will not tolerate violations of our borders. We will have even less patience for those who seek to violate the nation's immigration laws. The laws of the United States deserve and demand respect.

– John Ashcroft

There are voices in the Republican Party today who preach pragmatism, who champion conciliation, who counsel compromise. I stand here today to reject those deceptions. If ever there was a time to unfurl the banner of unabashed conservatism, it is now. It is immoral for a Republican Congress to tell Americans who are working harder and spending less time with their families that we can't afford to cut their taxes.

– John Ashcroft

Finally, when arguing with any of the moonbats who're running the Democrooked Party (into the ground), just know their template on this subject is never going to stray measurably from the one below — provided here as a public service.

Liberal: Ashcroft took away our rights!

Normal Human Being: No, he didn't. Name one person whose rights he took away.

Liberal: He sent people to Gitmo!

Normal Human Being: He sent terrorists there after we caught them on the battlefield. But you still haven't named one person whose rights he took away.

Liberal: He lost to a dead man! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Normal Human Being: He suspended his 2000 senate campaign out of respect for the family of his opponent who died in a plane crash. Power-hungry liberals (but I repeat myself) took advantage of his decency because they can't grasp concepts like respect and decency. But before you change the subject again, name one person whose rights you feel he took away.

Liberal: He sings that stupid song about an eagle!

Normal Human Being: Actually it's a patriotic song. Liberals have a hard time grasping patriotism, too. Anyhow, you've yet to name one person whose rights he took away.

Liberal: Now you're questioning my patriotism! You fascist.

Normal Human Being: Who's questioning? I'm plainly stating a fact. Liberals say and do things that undeniably aid and comfort our enemy in this World War. Yeah, real patriotic. Now, are you ever going to name any person whose rights he took away?

Liberal: You calling me a traitor?

Normal Human Being: If the Birkenstock fits....

Liberal: Racist!

Normal Human Being: So you can't name even one person whose rights he took away.

Liberal: Homophobe!

Normal Human Being: Didn't think so.

Given that the above is all Dhimmiqrats and other liberals will ever have for their "arguments" against Mr. Ashcroft's election, nothing can stop the following noontime conversation from taking place on January 20, 2009, at the center of the west front of our Capitol.

Chief Justice John Roberts: You, John David Ashcroft, do solemnly swear.

John D. Ashcroft: I, John David Ashcroft, do solemnly swear.

Chief Justice John Roberts: That you will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States.

John D. Ashcroft: That I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States.

Chief Justice John Roberts: And will to the best of your ability.

John D. Ashcroft: And will to the best of my ability.

Chief Justice John Roberts: Preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.

John D. Ashcroft: Preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.

Friday, August 17, 2007

Library of Congress Marcus Aurelius' remark that "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane" was quoted by a British scientist skeptical of global-warming nostrums.

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

What in the world could've possibly changed anyone's mind about the Saddamic Republic of Iraq?

L

iberals think feel that no one and nothing should ever change. These so-called "progressives" bleat that no one — with the exception of themselves, of course — is ever allowed to ever change his attitudes about anything at all. Everyone else must never "move on" or engage in any sort of "forward thinking" no matter what new circumstances or realities may crop up and demand it.

One thing you'll never hear any "progressive" liberal say about anything he's ever espoused or done is "I was wrong." Their so-called War on Poverty? Don't blame liberals for their never having won it, not even in the slightest. Those public housing high-rises Heartbreak Hotels® they demanded be built all throughout the country? Don't blame libressives for all the misery their total failures here caused, too, before each was finally — and mercifully — torn down. Their "roguish" bad boy in the oral office who, in 1994 and every year afterwards, did little about — besides flat-out ignore it — the growing threat to the United States from Middle Eastern state-sponsored terrorism? Don't blame progerals for his Treat All National Security Threats As Mere Crimes™ policy's complete and massive failure that directly encouraged and facilitated this:

So it's not surprising liberals feel that not even this literally bloody blast of reality should ever cause anyone, especially any of themselves, to change his mind about how our country and the rest of the world should finally be dealing with each and every state sponsor of terrorism, including doing whatever is necessary to eliminate even the potential of more such acts of terror against us.

Liberals would rather that the adults running our government wait until the "crime" is actually committed and the coroners and CSI teams have finished removing the thousands of bodies and tons of rubble and conducting autopsies and investigations before issuing any warrants, making arrests, and exposing our courtrooms — including all of us who sit on their juries along with our immediate family members — to every "defendant" and his supporters who are at all times prepared to do anything and everything at all, including die, to destroy and instill fear in as many of us "infidels" as possible so they can please and help take over the world for allah.

Thank the Lord our Vice President is forward-thinking enough to move on past such old and discredited attitudes and change his mind about why we must do everything in our power to permanently defeat the desperate and deadly enemies of not only the American people but all peoples, and about what cost is worth such best possible assurance that they will never cause harm to any of us or our children again.

Bush-hating Dinosaurat Party politicians and other such liberals simply don't get it. As this latest "gotcha!1!!1!@" demonstrates, no one is ever going to have any reason to expect they ever will or even could.

Sunday, August 12, 2007

n his sad, desperate cry for any attention that would somehow make his so-called life at least seem less thoroughly irrelevant than it actually is, official NYSlimes blogger and certified FreakedoutmaniacSt…D. Levitt was "thinking"feeling what he would do to maximize terror if he were a terrorist. He then solicits the opinions of everyone who has "far better ideas" than his own. (Of course that would be, as it is for all other areas as well, everyone less freaky than himself.)

Right before he stops accepting comments, he gets this one:

582. August 8th, 2007 7:07 pm

The terrorists require full psychic engagement by the west for their conflict to reach the "clash of civilizations" level they desire.

Since text-based thinkers will rationalize away almost any act against them (in order not to be forced to commit to the dangers of a physical life and its attendant discomforts), and since a large swath of the west are just such aphysical "thinkers", the terrorists must strike at the very heart of these rationalizers' mental security complex in order to push them out of their habitual placation and into an antagonistic mindset... thus achieving full western psychic involvement in the "clash of civilizations". This makes the New York Times building an excellent target.

— Posted by Kevin F

Using up all the fingers he has on his free hand, Terrorist Steve moans out five elements he would consider basic to his "best" plan to kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent people.

It's ironically fortuitous that an attack on the Spew Pork Rindsbuilding treason cell in which everyone inside is killed does possess all his enumerated elements.

I'd start by thinking about what really inspires fear. One thing that scares people is the thought that they could be a victim of an attack. With that in mind, I'd want to do something that everybody thinks might be directed at them, even if the individual probability of harm is very low. Humans tend to overestimate small probabilities, so the fear generated by an act of terrorism is greatly disproportionate to the actual risk.

Could you imagine the shaking in the voices of liberal correspondents sent to cover this mass carnage, as they describe the endless streams of gurneys carrying out the bullet-ridden corpses of Abill al-Qeller, Pinchy Stoolzburger, Francine Rich, and all the other "journalists" who used to be their colleagues? You can just see the uncertainty in their faces and hear their unspoken questions in all those reports — "Will I be next?" "Did we cause this?" "Weren't we being 'objective' enough towards them?" "Is Bush to blame?" (OK, so that last one will be spoken) — each backdropped by the sheet covered bodies and pools of blood blocking the building's broken out revolving front doors underneath that prominent NYSlimes logo.

The sheer panic spreading throughout the bias stream media would leave Terrorist Steve and his freaking invisible friends with an even more entrenched Fifth Column decomposing the ranks of a Fourth Estate that already goes far out of its way to either minimize or flatly ignore their atrocities so it can always accuse President Bush of "causing" such acts of terror.

Also, I'd want to create the feeling that an army of terrorists exists, which I'd accomplish by pulling off multiple attacks at once, and then following them up with more shortly thereafter.

At the same time Terrorist Steve & Company are throwing a writhing Mauronically enDow'd columnist out the Slimes' top floor window so they can watch her explode all across the pavement, several of his fellow freakozombies would be entering the LA Slimes and Waaaahingspin Post buildings to exterminate the progressissy populations there.

The easy slaughter of those hopeless hoplophobes would give the impression that every bastion of LibSpeak bias is the target of Levitt's Legions™.

Third, unless terrorists always insist on suicide missions (which I can't imagine they would), it would be optimal to hatch a plan in which your terrorists aren't killed or caught in the act, if possible.

Playing along with Stevie's freakish fantasy: Before his "army" wipes out everyone in these alleged newsrooms they can force each one's executive editor to personally sign and backdate press badges for Mr. Levitterrorist's freedom fighters. That way, when the police arrive they'll find "a few surviving employees who miraculously escaped the floor-to-floor lineups and executions by hiding themselves in broom closets." Given how utterly plausible such a craven response by liberal reporters would always seem, the police will fully accept their stories and immediately direct them to the nearest grief counselors.

Also, that video turning up afterwards on aljihada.com, which shows them beheading a tearfully pleading al-Qeller amidst his bloodcurdling screams, won't help police catch them because they'll all be wearing hoods in it.

Fourth, I think it makes sense to try to stop commerce, since a commerce breakdown gives people more free time to think about how scared they are.

You think libspaper stories about our ever bustling economy are extremely pessimistic now, just wait until the pall of this Elitist Press Massacre starts to really descend on the lower, remaining tiers of DeMSMoqrat editors after they've all returned from their heroes' funerals. There isn't a Doom-N-Gloom Meter anyone could make which won't completely burn out from any attempt to measure even the least level of DNG coloring their subsequent "reporting."

Fifth, if you really want to impose pain on the U.S., the act has to be something that prompts the government to pass a bundle of very costly laws that stay in place long after they have served their purpose (assuming they had a purpose in the first place).

The greatest of all ironies is the libstream media are going to be the ones clamoring the most for passage of that bundle — and more — no matter what the cost. All the Dhimmiqrats in al-Qongress will rush to cosponsor Mohamted al-Qennedy's USA JOURNALIST ACT, as they and their bylined propagandists vilify each and every Republican who doesn't. Whoever questions its inclusion of funds for a Media Martyrs Monument that depicts the heroic Abull al-Qeller — cast in solid platinum — bravely beating Terrorist Steve over the head with a copy of the First Amendment, they'll label cruel and insensitive. They'll claim that permanently stationing a contingent of National Guard around every newspaper building is wholly justified, assigning Secret Service protection for all editors is a necessary expense, and making the murder or even fifth-degree assault of any j-school grad a capital offense is the most required and effective deterrent ever in the history of mankind. Decades after the last of Osama bin Laden's DNA is scraped off a collapsed cave wall, where it and the rest of him has been all these years, they'll still write editorials demanding some newer expansion of those laws.

Nevertheless, instead of "If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?" a considerably improved form of public service — to the freaks of nature Terrorist Steve is trying to help — would've been his posting under the title, "If You Were a Progressive Liberal, How Would You Surrender?"

Monday, August 06, 2007

2. (a) Unless the Speaker directs otherwise, the Clerk shall conduct a record vote or quorum call by electronic device. In such a case the Clerk shall enter on the Journal and publish in the Congressional Record, in alphabetical order in each category, the names of Members recorded as voting in the affirmative, the names of Members recorded as voting in the negative, and the names of Members answering present as if they had been called in the manner provided in clause 3 [call of the roll]. A record vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote. Except as otherwise permitted under clause 8 or 9 of this rule [Postponement of proceedings; Five-minute votes] or under clause 6 of rule XVIII [voting in Committee of the Whole], the minimum time for a record vote or quorum call by electronic device shall be 15 minutes.

Last week, Desperatebrats summarily amended that "rule" by striking every instance of the word "Clerk" and inserting therein "Chair," and inserting after "15 minutes" the words "unless the Chair declares otherwise before, during, or after such vote or call."

But what else would one expect these arbitrary and capricious Dictatorats to do whenever they're bound and determined to win a vote despite its tallied outcome?

Besides, what good are "rules" and promises to a Democorruptic Party politician if any or all of them can't be outright broken or bent at a moment's notice?

Ironically, Democrats last year criticized Republicans for leaving votes open until the majority secured enough votes to win. They campaigned on the promise they would uphold the voting rules to ensure the will of the House prevailed.

"Another promise broken," said [Texas congressman Kevin] Brady. "Democrats were right to criticize us in the past for not keeping to strict voting rules. Unfortunately, now it's back to business as usual in Washington, just a different party arrogantly bending the rules to suit their needs."

This goes beyond arrogance. It signals more than any Democrassic Party politician's everyday act of corruption or abuse of power.

Demostatists have transformed "our" House into their private plantation, replete with servants servilely subject to the will and whims of malevolent masters — "and," to quote Sieg Heil!ary, "you knowha'm talkin' about."

Between blatantly ignoring House rules and increasingly gutting its ethics, Demoslaverat Party politicians remain so stolidly stuck in the past "moving on" down their same old tired, decrepit Always Berate Bush™ campaign trail, they have little time to busy themselves with anything else.

They should definitely keep it up. Demasteratic Party politicians are soon going to be attending the memorial service they've been preparing for their own careers. Except not even they will be able to inappropriately turn it into another of their repulsive pep rallies.

Sunday, August 05, 2007

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States... by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State [e.g., Illegal aliens].

Hazleton was incorporated as a borough by two acts of the [Pennsylvania] state legislature, the first winning approval April 31, 1851, and a supplemental act being authorized April 22, 1856.... [O]n Dec. 4, 1891, Hazleton was chartered as a city.

It is unlawful for any business entity to recruit, hire for employment, or continue to employ, or to permit, dispatch, or instruct any person who is an unlawful worker to perform work in whole or part within the City.... It is unlawful for any person or business entity that owns a dwelling unit in the City to harbor an illegal alien in the dwelling unit, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, unless such harboring is otherwise expressly permitted by federal law....

Application for occupancy permits shall be made upon forms furnished by the Code Enforcement Office for such purpose and shall specifically require the following minimum information: ... Proper identification showing proof of legal citizenship and/or residency.

[W]e will issue an order enjoining the enforcement of the ordinances at issue.... The Defendant City of Hazleton is prohibited from enforcing... Ordinance[s] 2006-18 and... 2006-13.

The John or Jane Doe Plaintiffs [i.e., Illegal Aliens] in this proceeding do not have to produce, or otherwise respond to discovery requests seeking disclosure of, "Protected Material", i.e., those documents, things, information and testimony containing information about their immigration status, actual residence, or place of work that would allow someone to identify them or their immigration status.

Federal law pre-empts [the Ordinances, which] violate the procedural due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.... Illegal aliens are "persons" under [the 1870 federal law that says, "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right[s]... as is enjoyed by white citizens"; so the Ordinances] impermissibly burden their right to contract.

Memorandum and Order, Protective Order, and Verdict,Judge Robed Master James M. Munley,Lozano, et al [e.g., illegal aliens] v. City of Hazleton Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,United States Estados Unidos District Courtfor against the Middle District of Pennsylvania

H

azleton, Pennsylvania is now the hometown of every freedom loving American patriot. His Royal Robeness James M. Munley, Demoqrat of Hillbillary Qlinton, is now forever part of the federal imperial judgdom's “history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over our States.”

The enemies of our Freedoms “have come forward to say Hazleton doesn’t have the right to protect itself.

“They’ve said that suing Hazleton will prevent other elected officials across America from enacting similar laws in their own towns.”

Some of these enemies “have also boasted they will take us to court and bankrupt the City of Hazleton, both to punish us for enacting this ordinance and to send a signal to other communities across the United States.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden our Cities to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

However blasé His Pointy Headedness may feel about the current state of federal immigration "enforcement," the nature of the threat its effective nonexistence poses to each of the United States makes it every American city's inescapable duty to start enacting whatever measures it judges necessary and expedient to disrupt the outright invasion of our country caused by a grossly neglected if not wholly abandoned federal statutory scheme.

Our right of self-defense, self-preservation, and self-determination pre-empts his see-nothing, hear-nothing, do-nothing order command so ill-conceived by him from afar, way up there on his bench throne, as he looks down on us with blind disregard for our needs. It is an unwise, unjust, and unfair command that leaves our states “remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within,” while forcing us to first "consult" with foreign powers — and in the process risk running afoul Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of our constitution — before any of our states or cities may adopt laws for protecting ourselves.

In sum, our independence as a free and self-governing people is, and of right ought to be supreme to his as an inferior judicial officer in merely one branch of a government that was ordained and established by us and that will remain always dependent on our consent.

He has affected to render the Judiciary independent of and superior to the Originators of all Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Suits of pretended Litigation: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Mayhems which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.

His capricious and arbitrary "protective order" intended to obfuscate the fact that foreigners are suing, contrary to original law, one of our sovereign states' inextricable portions, proves another abomination of justice by that overreaching branch of his whose cumulative obstruction of our liberties has become the significant and persistent cause of too many insufferable evils.

His absolute bestowal of rights on covetous foreign intruders who have shown, neither before nor after their coming uninvited and unwelcome across our borders, no authentic loyalty to or respect for our country and her sovereignty, makes alienable the rights exclusively earned and entitled to be enjoyed by lawful residents. In so doing, he himself has violated the due process protections of our laws by unconstitutionally extending them to lawbreakers who have absolutely no right to be here at all and who thus are not lawfully in or subject to his jurisdiction.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. Any Judge whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the servant of a free people.

As these robed grenadiers descend on our cities and states and try to confiscate from us every common means of our mutual safety and defense — including the very laws we make by and for ourselves which we judge most valuable — it is smalltown defenders, like Minutemen of old and not so old, who are standing up to them and preparing to beat them back.

Let the cry go forth. "The black robes are coming! The black robes are coming!" Let the singular light of Liberty shine from atop our highest towers as a strong warning and promise that spreads out across every part of this land we love. Let both be heard and seen by all its inhabitants.

Today Hazleton is our Lexington. Tomorrow your hometown will be our Concord unless we stand united against the advancing enemies of our freedom. Even before they can approach our northernmost bridges we will already be disrupting their aims to divide and conquer us.

It is appropriate that in Philadelphia, the birthplace of our states' independence, we will be gathering our forces for the next fight. There within another tower, into whose base's limestone band is inscribed the private-law message "Justice The Guardian of Liberty," judges composing the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will receive our hometown's petition for redress of this latest grievance. Will they remember that inscription as they examine their colleague's mammoth 206-page decision which extends federal judicial power "to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States... by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State" whom he harbored in a cloak of anonymity in his own court with clear intent to obstruct, in breach of his public trust and oath, enforcement of our nation's laws by directly abetting multiple foreign-state citizens' evasions of those laws? Will they vacate his decision to divide out our own hometown — a "general purpose unit of government" having no recognizable autonomy under Article IX, section 14 of Pennsylvania's constitution — from the state who alone is responsible for its entire creation and existence, and void his injudicious order to conquer the effective defenses of them both? Will they bar all further claims of federal jurisdiction in this and every other suit commenced against Pennsylvania's government or one or more of its dependent units by a foreign state's citizens or subjects, and instruct all foreign plaintiffs that the only proper opportunity they have to commence any such suit is in the commonwealth's courts as Article 1, Section 11 of Pennsylvania's constitution amply provides them?

Whether we who openly are loyal to this land and are fighting to keep it free and independent prevail in Philadelphia, or those court-hidden foreign trespassers whose swarm of fee-shifty Atheist Communist Liberal Ungodlybirm atturncoatneys are endeavoring to destroy our freedoms and independence do, that fight will move to our nation's capital. Whether we have cause to escalate it from there — whether we must, of necessity, continue beyond the stilted confines of sterile proceedings this struggle to reclaim our just rights and powers — is the ultimate issue for our supreme court to decide.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Either we hang together in our ongoing struggle or we and our hometowns will surely hang separately.

Friday, August 03, 2007

Politicizing death and destruction. Can't get any more "progressive" than that!

B

umper stickers instead of bandages are what Demoonbatic Party prOnressives want to obscenely slap on our bleeding bodies as they politically rape each one with their pointing fingers.

A Minneapolis bridge that was labeled structurally deficient in 1990 and remained so all throughout The Qlinton Years™ collapses into the Mississippi River, and the only thing Demoblamerats have to offer is turning the resulting deaths and injuries into yet another perverse watersport of theirs.

As the folks who want to provide real assistance were bending down to carry out the wounded and dead and pick up the pieces, Dodoratic Party politicians rushed up to stand behind them and do nothing but cover their backs with this peegressive filth and tell them, "It's raining."